2022 (11) TMI 1059

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The present appeal has been listed for hearing before us pursuant to the order dated 10/10/2022, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Suresh Maneklal Sheth vs ITO, M.A. no. 107/Mum./2022 (in ITA no. 3580/ Mum./2018, for the assessment year 2007-08), whereby, the earlier order dated 29/11/2021, passed under section 254(1) of the Act was recalled and appeal was directed to be re-fixed for hearing. 3. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: "The following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CITA] erred in not holding that the notice dated 19-03- 2014 issued u/s 148....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion, assessee filed its return of income on 21/04/2014, declaring total income of Rs. 6,63,520. Reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated in the case of the assessee based on information received from Sales Tax Department through DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai that the assessee is the beneficiary of bogus purchase bills and has obtained accommodation entries from 2 parties to the tune of Rs. 53,56,525. During the course of assessment proceedings, notice under section 133 (6) of the Act was sent to these parties, which were returned unserved with the remark 'left' by the postal authorities. The opportunity was also granted to the assessee to produce the parties and prove the genuineness of the transactions. However, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der similar facts and circumstances, by observing as under: "9. Having held so, now we propose to deal with the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer and partly sustained by learned Commissioner (Appeals). As could be seen from the facts on record, in course of assessment proceedings the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of purchases from the declared source by furnishing any cogent evidence to show actual delivery of goods. Further, notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act by the Assessing Officer to verify the genuineness of purchases also returned back un-served, hence, the identity of the selling dealers could not be established. However, it is a fact on record that sales effected by the assesse....